cn.MOPS (Gabrielaite et al. WGS)
cn.MOPS as run in the cited comparison.
Overview
cn.MOPS as run in the cited comparison.
Consult the linked sources for architecture or protocol details. Missing evidence is not evidence of a missing capability.
Evaluations and results
1 evaluation · 2 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.
Filter evaluations
Applied filters: All linked evaluations
| Tested configuration | Protocol and dataset | Finding | Evidence and details |
|---|---|---|---|
| Configuration: cn.MOPS (Gabrielaite et al. WGS) | Protocol: NA12878 WGS CNV recall and precision, 1 bp overlap (Gabrielaite et al. Table S2) Dataset: NA12878 WGS with the Haraksingh et al. 2017 gold-standard CNV set | 0.123 precision fraction · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Independent external evaluation · Source checkedMethods, coverage and sourcecnv-20261009-protocol-gabrielaite2021-na12878-wgs-overlap Aggregation: Not reported A Comparison of Tools for Copy-Number Variation Detection in Germline Whole Exome and Whole Genome Sequencing Data; Gabrielaite et al. 2021, Table S2 (precision and recall of CNV calling tools) · Table S2.xlsx, sheet Supplementary_table2, K88; sample GB-WGS-NA12878; tool cn.MOPS; column precision |
| Configuration: cn.MOPS (Gabrielaite et al. WGS) | Protocol: NA12878 WGS CNV recall and precision, 1 bp overlap (Gabrielaite et al. Table S2) Dataset: NA12878 WGS with the Haraksingh et al. 2017 gold-standard CNV set | 0.17 recall fraction · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Independent external evaluation · Source checkedMethods, coverage and sourcecnv-20261009-protocol-gabrielaite2021-na12878-wgs-overlap Aggregation: Not reported A Comparison of Tools for Copy-Number Variation Detection in Germline Whole Exome and Whole Genome Sequencing Data; Gabrielaite et al. 2021, Table S2 (precision and recall of CNV calling tools) · Table S2.xlsx, sheet Supplementary_table2, L88; sample GB-WGS-NA12878; tool cn.MOPS; column recall |
Source checking is not independent reproduction. Release 2026-10-09-8eac2440869c.
Use this model
How it works, versions and access
Strengths, limitations and unresolved questions
Evidence
Source checking verifies the cited claim or transcription. It does not establish independent reproduction.
Evidence table
Inspect claims, sources and review details
Trace each statement to its source and review. A context-only reference supports the record generally; it does not verify an individual field. Source checking does not reproduce an experiment.
One row per statement and cited source. Multiple citations are not independent evaluations. Shared locators are labelled explicitly.
0 evidence rows matching the loaded filters
| Property and statement | Original source and location | Review and provenance |
|---|
No evidence rows match these filters. Choose another scope or clear the search.
Sources and history
Release 2026-10-09-8eac2440869c · Record review: source checked
2 source records and release history
- A Comparison of Tools for Copy-Number Variation Detection in Germline Whole Exome and Whole Genome Sequencing Data · Original source · Cancers 13(24):6283, published 2021-12-14; PMC8699073 full-text XML
- Gabrielaite et al. 2021, Table S2 (precision and recall of CNV calling tools) · Original source · Supplementary Materials/Table S2.xlsx inside cancers-13-06283-s001.zip
Technical metadata and extraction receipts
Stable ID: cnv-20261009-config-gabrielaite2021-cn-mops
- areas
- dna-genomes
- contexts
- clinical_research
- method types
- conventional_pipeline
- reported name
- cn.MOPS
- missing metadata
- version: reason: unreported; note: Unreported in the article methods
- foundation model eligible
- false
Related records
- configuration of: cn.MOPS
- system: cn.MOPS on NA12878 WGS